Welcome to Gaia! :: Man from dust? People take the bible too literally....

Okay, here's the deal. Obviously, people do take the bible too literally. I am one to believe what it talks about is more metaphorical, stories, meant to SHOW certain ideas and stuff.

Now, about evolution, a lot of bible thumpers claim that it says man came from dust and therfore cannot have evolved from apes and therefore Darwin is wrong. Now here's my problem, the idea of man being created from dust is FAR from denying evolution, and I'll get to it after I give an example to prove my arguement:


For one, the idea that God created the Earth is seven days doesn't have to be taken literally. What if it wasen't created in seven EARTH days? What if each of these days were in fact centuries, or millenia? It would make sense, being it metaphorical, it could show how the Earth was slowly created during time, different things coming into being in stages, etc. You know what I mean?

Now then, what if evolution/creation of man was the same idea? The idea of the origin of life in evolutionary views is that in the primordial waters of the new planet, s**t happened, and little critters came to life. Eventualyl those critters grew and developped, and eons of evolutionary development later here we are.

Now then, let's look at the bible's idea: God created man from dust, and voila, there he was.

Now then, what if, in non-LITERAL terms, both could have happened, and they mean the same thing, only that one is more indepth than the other. This "dust" could easily be refrence to the "critters", or actually bacteria as it would've been in it's early creation. Man was created from these things. It makes sense, no?

Just like the seven days of Earth's creation could be an analogy for the eons of Earth's creation, why not "man created from dust" being one of "man is descent from bacteria"?

To me, it makes perfect sense, and gives religious people reasons to actually accept these "non-religious" ideas. They can infact co-operate quite nicely, as I have shown. You just gotta understand how to mold the words, you know?


I'm sorry if I'm not very good at explaining this, I never really am anyway. But to me, it would make perfect sense to see the bible explanations used as analogies to scientific explanations, you know?

People who don't understand when informed are wont to take things litterally.

I think the old testament was misleading in general. The God of the old testament was cruel and unforgiving. The people of the old testament were sometimes equally as cruel. stare

Of course, the old testament made women either evil or stupid too. stressed

I guess what I'm trying to say is the old testament can really give people the wrong idea. The new testament is a lot more peaceful. 3nodding

Contradiction, plox.

So man was dust so it should return dust.

We are mostly water. We are a carbon based life form. Our meat is protein. Our bones are calcium. Our blood has a lot of iron in it.

Dirt is mostly broken down organic matter, such as decayed plants. Decaying animals are usually consumed by other critters such as bacteria or bugs. In fact one of the first things that eats you when you die is the bacteria in your colon.

A part that lasts the longest is the bone structure which is made of calcium. Calcium doesn't break down so easily.